Withdrawal Capacity of a Novel Rigging Device for Prefabricated Wood I-Joist Floor Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prefabricated wood construction relies heavily on efficient material handling, yet rigging system design for floor panels remains understudied. This study introduces a novel rigging device that attaches to prefabricated wood I-joist floor panels using self-tapping screws, avoiding potential damage caused by predrilled holes in the sheathing panels and framing members. To establish allowable lifting capacities and optimal installation practices, comprehensive withdrawal tests were conducted on 114-floor panel specimens. Factors influencing withdrawal capacity, such as anchor plate placements, flange materials and width, screw type and quantity, and sheathing panel thickness, were systematically evaluated. Results indicate that withdrawal capacity does not scale linearly with screw quantity and that anchor plates with eight screws centered on the flange enhance performance by up to 20% compared to four-screw configurations. Unexpectedly, thinner sheathing panels yielded higher capacities, potentially due to increased screw penetration depth in the joist flange. In addition, anchor plate orientation, flange width, and flange materials also impact capacity. These findings provide essential data for designing reliable and efficient rigging systems in prefabricated wood construction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".